9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of adoptions and wills - Burden of proof on plaintiff in setting aside Tax Recovery Officer's order Analysis: The case involved a suit filed by the Income-tax Officer to set aside an order by the Tax Recovery Officer accepting adoptions and wills. The defendants sought to amend the issues to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff. The court allowed the amendment, placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove the adoptions and wills were not valid. The plaintiff, in a revision petition, argued that the defendants should prove the validity of the wills and adoptions they set up. The court noted the property in question belonged to a deceased individual, with the defendants claiming a share through adoptions and wills. The key issue was whether the burden of proof rested solely on the plaintiff in such cases. The court analyzed Rule 11(6) of the Income-tax Act, which allows a party to file a suit to establish their right to property claimed in a tax dispute. The court compared this rule to Order 21, rules 58 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the distinction between possession and title in such suits. The court held that the defendants, who claimed possession based on adoptions and wills, had to prove their validity. It rejected the argument that the plaintiff must provide negative evidence, stating the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. The court cited precedents to support its decision, highlighting the need for the defendants to prove their claims in a suit to set aside the Tax Recovery Officer's order. In conclusion, the court set aside the lower court's order, allowing the revision petition and shifting the burden of proof back to the defendants. The court emphasized that the defendants, who set up the adoptions and wills, must prove their validity and claim to the property. The ruling clarified the burden of proof in cases involving tax disputes and property claims based on adoptions and wills.
|
